Milter-greylist

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 17:46, manu@... wrote:
> Moritz Both <mb@...> wrote:
> 
> > So nobody said delaying until after the DATA phase if the sender is null
> > is a bad thing. Happy to be able to contribute easily, here is the patch
> > against 1.6 (I havn't tried the development versions because production
> > is my goal and of course this patch is bug free). Do with it whatevery
> > you want...
> 
> Reading your code, I remembered why this was a difficult problem. Think
> about this kind of scenario:

<good example snipped>


> 
> Opinions on this topic?
>  

Personally I think keeping it simple is the best option, if it has a
null sender delay it by default.

Trying to get to tricky with it will result in problems which will
result in more complex schemes to resolve those problems etc.


-- 
Scot L. Harris
webid@...

Are you having fun yet?